Readers' comments

Maybe not in other regions of the country, but in Upper Silesia some people would accuse the president of nationalism. According to the last census from 2011 almost 400,000 peaple declared themself as ethnic Silesians and not Poles. About 500,000 stated silesian as their mother tongue and would like to gain the state recognition and protection of it. But the president rejected publicly that idea. Similar happened to the new build (with big support of EU) Silesian Museum in Katowice where the exhibition dedicated to the regional history of Upper Silesia should also show the development of the region under the prussian and german rule. The president was very engaged in the defamation of the museum´s director and vetoed his reelection. The musuem´s council he told that the museum should propagate the polishness of Upper Silesia first rather than the facts. Mr. Komorowski got a M.A. in history (sic!).

Komorowski is undoubtedly popular, but this is due to a structural function of Poland's political system. The president is largely a figurehead and thus does basically nothing controversial, or does not have to. An example of both is that President Aleksander Kwasniewski was the most trusted Polish politician for nearly all of his 10 years in power. This was despite some controversy. President Lech Kaczynski was not so lucky, but he was very partisan and played an active role supporting his brother then PM Jaroslaw Kaczynski's controversial policies. Komorowski's trust rankings jumped something like 20 percentage points between January 2010 and June/July when he was elected.
As long as the president plays the figure-head, statesman (or -woman, though despite all the changes in Poland in recent years, this is still hard to see) or 'uniter', then he or she can remain above the fray and be popular and trusted.

In my opinion the main reason of his popularity lies in his inactive role, that he took up in the politics. He doesn't interfere in the domestic politics and as he has the support of the Civic Platform he simply quietly signs new laws passed in the pairlament. He may be more active on international level, nevertheless as Poland has already entered to the UN and EU, there are not that many opportunities for this activity to be publicly noticed. Even for me it took few months to notice, that he shaved his mustache. He simply lays low. Is it a good strategy to get reelected? We'll see...

Why are the media/press, religious institutions, intelligence services and other government bureaucracies of Eastern European nations still controlled by East Bloc era agents? The same is true for the 15 republics that made up the USSR? Why didn't the Economist demand that Western political parties send investigative teams into the "former" East Bloc and USSR to VERIFY their "collapses"? Why would the Economist believe anything "former" Communists said about "collapses"?

Maybe the next article the Economist posts on Poland's general political environment won't be a love letter to Poland's political establishment, but a real investigative piece that asks the hard questions no one wants to ask!

"Why are the media/press, religious institutions, intelligence services and other government bureaucracies of Eastern European nations still controlled by East Bloc era agents?"

Are they? It sounds just like another conspiracy theory rather than "a question nobody wants to ask". My point is, 11 (or 12 if you count East Germany)former Eastern Bloc nations have been members of both NATO and European Union for years now, so it's hard to believe that countries working so closely with the United States and being part of the European powerhouse are controlled by former Eastern Bloc agents.

A fair comment and criticism of B.Komorowski. The man can be described as a friendly teddy-bear, intelligent, politically conservative with moderate catholic views and a proven track record of active opposition in the communist period (he was imprisoned, unlike his current main political opponents who did nothing). Other than extremist nationalist (neo-fascist) right wingers who represent little but themselves, the bulk of voters, whatever their political sympathies support President Komorowski. I fully expect him to be freely re-elected for a further 5 year term at the next Presidential election.

Komorowski was not so much imprisoned as interned in the communist holiday resort of Jaworzno together with all his political mates - now again together in government. Of course, other members of Solidarity were not so lucky. Antoni Macierewicz was forced to share his cell with hardened criminals in Radom prison. In the early morning Jarosław Kaczyński was taken by communist police for questioning and read the riot act - he knew that if they discovered his political activities he and his brother (who was interned) would more likely end up in prison. The devil is in the details when we say imprisoned. Michnik did an awful lot of time, but this was time to write lots of books. Wałęsa was held separately,but there he was given time to play table tennis with Wachowski and drink lots of vodka, champagne and beer: "spirytus – 2 but., wódka – 289 but., wino – 158 but., winiak i koniak – 59 but., szampan – 238 but., piwo – 1115 but." [but = bottle]. No wonder there was twice as much of him when he came out.

Like in most other countries, the interest of the average Pole in politics is minimal or very superficial. They pick up the negative vibes from the mainstream media and are put off.

It has to be stressed that in the "Polish" media the culture of discussion has all but disappeared. Journalists are no longer journalists, they are political agents. Like elsewhere, there are two sides. There is the III RP establishment and there is the democratic opposition. "Journalists" like Lis and Olejnik usually treat members of the establishment, especially the founders of this system, communist criminals like Kiszczak and Jaruzelski, with deference, and anyone who has the courage to express views contrary to the establishment's interests as mortal enemies. Then it's no holds barred, Monika Olejnik turns into a Rottweiler.

Naturally, establishment politicians have to confront the opposition, in throwing mud they inevitably get themselves dirty, but more importantly, after six years of government, whether they want to or not, they also have to take at least some of the responsibility for everything that's gone wrong. And since Civic Platform (PO) is exceptionally incompetent, more than plenty has gone wrong.

According to the Polish constitution the president does actually share some of the responsibilities of government, thus the conflict between Prime Minister Tusk and President Kaczyński. And that was probably one of the main reasons why Tusk decided that the president should be a mere figurehead, a "girandole" or bandoleer was the word he used.

In a staged debate between two particularly uncharismatic candidates (the other one was Radosław or rather Radek Sikorski), PO officially selected Komorowski as their candidate for president. Bronisław Komorowski or "bul" Komorowski as he is now known, makes Dan Quayle look bright. Apart from the colossal gaffes there is also a much darker side to Komorowski and his wife, the daughter of high ranking communist police officers. He is presented as a Catholic, patriotic conservative, but surrounds himself with former hard line communists and is a good friend of Janusz Palikot (who now represents the anti-Church radical left).

The general public need not know about this. They don't even know much about his passion for the bloody "sport" of hunting (even though he's very short-sighted). All the photographs have suddenly disappeared - unlike Lech Kaczyński, this president is protected. And now that Tusk's popularity is steadily sinking, his right-hand woman Gronkiewicz Waltz only just survived a pre-term referendum, Komorowski is now the establishment's great white hope. Thus, I suppose, the above article. After TE is also very much a mainstream establishment paper.

Come on fromGdańsk. Two indepedent polls cannot be wrong - Bronisław Komorowski IS popular. If PO party, kick-restarted (hopefully!) by the referendum in Warsaw shall move their you know what again, Komorowski would become even more popular. Because it is much easier to be popular in a prosperous country than in the ailling one, right?

And chances for Poland to become even more prosperous are overwhelming. Did you read recent analysis by World Bank?

There's a constant economical growth in Poland since 1992, which will not stop at least until 2030, when the GDP/per capita level will reach 80 per cent of mean EZ level (80 percent is the mean prediction of European Commission ((always overly pessimistic re: Poland)) OECD, PWC and Goldman Sachs).

Today it is 62 per cent of EZ mean. The same percentage as Poland's relative to the then "Western Europe" 500 years ago.

We are living in the best of times since 500 years and you don't notice it, fromGdańsk?

And during two decades 1990ties-2000ties we have made up for 500 years of backlog. Isn't that better result than postwar Japan?

Add to that bright, even if still alleged prospect the fact that Bronisław Komorowski has no moustache anymore!

Dear Forlana, I never said the polls were wrong (though CBOS for very political reasons often is), I only suggested how such statistics might occur. For instance, someone is given a choice between a government politician with 7 years of unfilled promises and countless scandals, an opposition politician who has been systematically maligned for the last 8 years, and a president, who only participates in ceremonial events and if at all, is only remembered for his to a greater or lesser extent amusing gaffes. And this punter is then asked which of these politicians he trusts the most. It's not that the polls are wrong, they just might not reflect the whole truth.

Yes, we've never had so good, can't argue with that. But that's a general trend in much of world, the Greeks could say the same, and they'd be even more right. And this year what did those economists get their Nobel prizes for?

If shaving off a moustache can be added to Komorowski's "achievements", well, okay ;-)

If you made it past the headlines for once, you'd actually learn about the conditions for future growth in Poland according to the author, and which aren't met as yet - among them a liberalization of the labor market and massive immigration (as I have been pointing out for ages).

P.S. You really should read up about Poland 500 years ago, the Prussian Homage (not Radek in Berlin), Polish Renaissance, Mikołaj Rej, Jan Kochanowski, the largest state in Christendom, the constitution, unique religious tolerance, republicanism, Wawrzyniec Grzymała Goślicki, the golden age, etc. Then perhaps you'd realise how much more our neighbours achieved in 500 years, or in just 10-20 years after WWII. Japan, come to think of it, too.

FromGdańsk, can you suggest some interesting reading, please?
In the meantime, please note that 500 years ago the incredible wealth of Poles was in the hands of some 10 per cent of population, so I will not wish to change the present times for Rej, Kochanowski and largest state of Christendom.
As to Prussian Homage to make yoru parallel valid Radek should go to Koenigsberg not to Berlin. And where is Koenigsberg? Have you been there, hav you seen Kaliningrad. Where is the agressive state of Prussia? Because, you know, as I see it - the two most hurt victims of Prussia, Poland and Germany are alive and kicking.
As to Greece and others. I don't know what they say, though I'd only be glad if they can say the same - that we live in the best of times since centuries. But I do know that certainly they do not live on the Northern European Plain, if that rings the bell.
Pozdrawiam serdecznie :)

Hi Forlana, quite paradoxically perhaps (when I think of the garbage he writes these days), the book that really opened my eyes was Norman Davies’s “God’s Playground”. It’s not that loads of far more scholarly books on the subject were not written earlier, by authors such as Janusz Tabzir (re religious tolerance) or even more scholarly and critical books written in the 19th century by Krakow “pessimists” and Warsaw “optimists”, but back then, in the late 1970s early 80s, ND was still young and fresh enough to successfully convey genuine amazement, the way only an outsider could.

Panta rhei, but change of geographic location does not necessarily mean a change of culture, tradition or sense of law, morality and statehood. I’ve been to Kaliningrad and know Germany is no longer there – newly-weds (heterosexual) now open bubbly at the tomb of Immanuel Kant, outside Koenigsberg Cathedral. But the capital of the direct successor of the Prussian state is now in Berlin. The Hohenzollerns ruled in Prussia and then, once it was founded, one of them became Kaiser of the German Empire. Radek’s Berlin homage analogy is not actually mine, but the association is obvious.

10 per cent is more than had the right to vote in Britain at the start of the 19th century. And 500 years ago other states were entering an age of absolutism, religious wars, persecution and sectarian hatred, some of which festers in parts of Europe and the UK to this day. The great 19th century Polish historians, some of them extremely critical of Poland, were essentially lawyers, and what laws would they refer to? It’s that civilizational aspect rather than merely territorial or material aspect I am talking about. Perhaps you should read some Feliks Koneczny, too?

The point is we have a great civilization and culture to refer to. The 19th-century pessimists were lamenting how we blew it, how we let the once prosperous Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth get devoured by autocratic neighbours. Polish vices back then were the same as the ones we have today, the same ones mentioned in the introduction to Dmowski’s “Thoughts of a Modern Pole” at the turn of the 20th century, the same ones mentioned in Piotr Skarga’s sermons at the turn of the 17th century. We’re selfish, only interested in our own “zagroda”, complacent, conceited, but respecting foreigners more than compatriots and alien cultures infinitely more than our own. And isn’t that the case today?

Hi again,
fromGdańsk, I have read all Norman Davies wrote on Poland and not just on Poland. Janusz Tazbir is my favourite historian-writer. In leisure I am presently reading his little book "Spotkania z historią" (Btw. the next one will be Polish translation of Croire et détruire: Les intellectuels dans la machine de guerre SS by Christian Ingrao, a book documenting how German intellectual elite eagerly joined the project of building Third Reich and providing 'proofs' for superiority of the Germanic people, fascinating stuff).
I will not read Feliks Konieczny. But I did read Dmowski, Piłsudski as well as Jasienica, Bogucka, Snyder and more.

The noblemen made a lot of mistakes but the main mistake was that they started to believe that Rzeczpospolita is so strong that she is eternal, and turned lazy and too pacifistic. And Poland was not given a chance to reform, as many countries in history were(eg. Germany post-WWII) but dismantled by the authoritarian states scared to death by the waves of true freedom permeating from Rzeczpospolita.

Well, you've read all the books, but apparently drawn completely different conclusions to mine.

For a start, we Poles are unique. Other nations have very different virtues and vices, they have completely different histories and sensibilities. On the other hand, that doesn't make us exceptional, because the Germans are unique, the Russians are unique, the French are unique and the British are unique. Don't believe me? Ask them.

Second, to call Polish nobles pacifistic is bit of an oversimplification. Even if they didn't go around with sabres all the time, and like Americans preferred to settle their numerous disputes in courts of law, they all owned or belonged to someone's private army, and if need be, personally knew how to fight. What they were loath to do, was pool resources in a major campaign commanded by the king. Poland, uniquely in 17th and 18th centuries, still relied on a levee en masse. Reluctance to contribute did not result from pacifism of the knightly caste, but selfishness and total lack of interest in what happened beyond their own neck of the woods.

In the 18th Poland's army was restricted by Russia, why would the nobles agree to it? Because they were bribed. They knew that if they played along they eat, drink, be merry and get fat - Panie Kochanku, Panie Rybienko. Today it's pretty much the same. If someone raises the slightest objection to the most ridiculous of EU rules, the III RP establishment immediately accuses that person of "sabre rattling" - one of the most preposterous catch phrases I'm sure you've frequently heard. Yes, in the 18th century many nobles were quite happy to live under a Russian protectorate, and they had no illusions that this was not the case. Only those who wanted reform, who started wearing traditional Polish noble garb were branded foolhardy sabre rattlers. When on the initiative of Frederick II the partitions began, a majority woke up (Polak mądry po szkodzie), Poland's fundamental laws and civil rights were preserved in a single document, the May 3rd Constitution, the king, a great patron of the arts, was carried in the arms of triumphant nobles and... what happened next? What did King Stanisław August (lover of Catherine II) do next? Targowica.

Isn't that the spectre that gives Poles undeservedly clinging to power the jitters to this day? Don't they get very upset when we say that?

And why is the Polish football team so useless? Is it because the individual players are so bad that they can't get contracts in Western clubs, or is because they can't perform as a team under the Polish flag?